Relation of urinary bisphenol concentration and diabetes or prediabetes in French adults: A cross-sectional study

Julie Delepierre; Sandrine Fosse-Edorh; Clémence Fillol; Clara Piffaretti

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283444

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 12, 2022
5 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Ana Claudia Morais Godoy Figueiredo, Editor PONE-D-22-22640Relation of urinary bisphenol concentration to risk of diabetes or prediabetes in French adults: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Piffaretti, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Dear Author, there is a possibility that your article may be accepted for publication. However, there are some issues that need to be clarified. In this way, they follow the estimates for appreciation. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by 20 October 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ana Claudia Morais Godoy Figueiredo, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Additional Editor Comments : Dear Author, It is necessary to inform whether a normality test was applied to identify the type of parametric and non-parametric test. What was the criterion for choosing the student's t test? Additionally, although it is a population-based study, it is important to show that the sample used for the hypothesis tested has sufficient power. In this way, calculate the power of your results against the sample used and present it at the end of the discussion. You already inform that the power is insufficient in the end, but how much would it be? And how this undermines the scientific evidence produced. Is the evidence valid for decision-making by health professionals? Talk more about this aspect in the discussion. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: It is not clear whether the data is available, as required by PLOSOne `The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception` I have responded `partly` to the question `Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?` as I am not sure of some of the statistical analyses, and I expect the authors to respond to my comments in the attached review document. I indicate above that the statistics have been performed correctly. Reviewer #2: Congratulations to the authors for conducting the study and reporting the results in this manuscript. The manuscript is concise and of pleasant to read. Some contributions: 1. Describe in the method the exclusion criteria of the participants - this information was presented only in the results. 2. The results presented in Table 1 do not contribute to answer the research question. I suggest removing these results and going straight to the results presented in Table 2. 3. As it is a cross-sectional study, it is better to refer to the odds ratio and not the risk. 4. The first paragraph of the conclusion is general and does not add information to the reader. I suggest starting with the text of the second paragraph. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Delpierre PLOSONE D 22 22640.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283444.r001
Revision 1
25 Oct 2022 Author Response Journal requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response: It has been done, and the files have been renamed. 2. Please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Response: Previously, it was only specified in the Esteban protocol article (reference 19). We added this sentence directly in the “Esteban study” part of the Methods: “An informed consent form for participation in the study was signed in triplicate by the participants.” 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Response: The authors received no specific funding for this work, and no grants have been received. However, the French national public health agency, which is the investigator of the study, was funded by the public authorities. We added this sentence in the cover letter “The French National Public Health Agency runs the French human biomonitoring programme, which is funded by the French Ministries of Health and Environment.” We respectfully hope that these clarifications have answered all your questions. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Reponse: The data is public but cannot be shared on the internet (open data) for ethical and legal reasons, imposed by the French regulatory authorities. That is why we specified "Due to legal and ethical concerns, the data underlying the results presented in the study are available, on justified request, from Santé publique France, the French national public health agency. (https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/)" Santé publique France is a public government agency that can be contacted via its website https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/. Additional Editor Comments : Dear Author, It is necessary to inform whether a normality test was applied to identify the type of parametric and non-parametric test. What was the criterion for choosing the student's t test? Response: Dear Editor, thank you for your detailed comments and vigilance. Only the Student test was used. This was rectified in the methods and in the note of Table 2 [table 1 in the revised manuscript] (as mentioned by reviewer #1, we only describe one continuous variable in Table 2[table 1 in the revised manuscript]). The normality test was applied to identify the statistic test to use. We also looked at the graphical aspect of the data. Additionally, although it is a population-based study, it is important to show that the sample used for the hypothesis tested has sufficient power. In this way, calculate the power of your results against the sample used and present it at the end of the discussion. You already inform that the power is insufficient in the end, but how much would it be? And how this undermines the scientific evidence produced. Response: Thank you for this interesting comment. In light of your contribution and also to comply with Reviewer#1’s comment number 27 (i.e. “line 288: insufficient statistical power is not an argument, as your ORs are far from being statistically significant”), we propose to remove the following sentence from the discussion. Indeed, it added confusion and was not entirely correct, as stated by Reviewer#1. We have deleted the following sentence : “Finally, although the sample size (N = 852) is reasonable compared to other international studies, the absence of a significant association between urinary BPS and BPF concentrations and the diabetic or prediabetic status may be due to an insufficient statistical power.” Is the evidence valid for decision-making by health professionals? Talk more about this aspect in the discussion. Response: Our evidence is valid and deserves to be transmitted to decision-makers. Although, it concerns more government decisions than day-to-day clinical decision of health professionals. We said in our paper in the conclusion that: “In light of the results of our study, this regulation of BPA seems justified”. However, the most useful studies for health policy makers are those that establish causality. We are convinced of the value of the information we are providing with this cross-sectional study, but we have nevertheless tempered the interpretation of our results, since the study design only allows us to generate or provide elements of confirmation of certain hypotheses. We have specified that: “prospective longitudinal studies are necessary needed to demonstrate a causal link between exposure to bisphenols and the onset of diabetes or prediabetes”. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: It is not clear whether the data is available, as required by PLOSOne `The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception` Response: We answered the Editor directly. The data is public but can only be available on demand, due to ethics and legal reasons. I have responded `partly` to the question `Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?` as I am not sure of some of the statistical analyses, and I expect the authors to respond to my comments in the attached review document. I indicate above that the statistics have been performed correctly. Response: We answered every comment in the attached document (“Response to reviewers”). Reviewer #2: Congratulations to the authors for conducting the study and reporting the results in this manuscript. The manuscript is concise and of pleasant to read. Some contributions: 1. Describe in the method the exclusion criteria of the participants - this information was presented only in the results. Response: Thank you for the comment. We clarified the exclusion criteria in the study population paragraph in the method. The new paragraph is as follows: “To study the relationship between bisphenol exposure and the risk of diabetes or prediabetes, Esteban participants had to be at least 18 years. Exclusion criteria were: absence of at least one questionnaire (interview-guided and self-administered), absence of medical examination, having gestational diabetes, absence of fasting serum glucose measurement and absence of measurement of urinary concentration of BPA, BPS, and BPF.” 2. The results presented in Table 1 do not contribute to answer the research question. I suggest removing these results and going straight to the results presented in Table 2. Response: Table 1 describes the total populations of the Esteban study (n=2345) and the population of our study (n=852). I agree that it is not essential, however it does support that the two population present similar characteristics. We propose to remove it from the main manuscript but add it in a Supporting information section. 3. As it is a cross-sectional study, it is better to refer to the odds ratio and not the risk. Response: Thank you for this point. We agree and thought we tried to make this clear in the first draft of the manuscript. We have re-read the manuscript with this particular point in mind. We don’t use the word risk anymore and have made changes throughout the manuscript. 4. The first paragraph of the conclusion is general and does not add information to the reader. I suggest starting with the text of the second paragraph. Response: Thank you, we agree. We started the conclusion with the second paragraph, and enrich the last paragraph with some elements of the first paragraph that was deleted. The last paragraph became: “In addition, as diabetes is a major public health concern and environmental pollutants may be involved in the etiology of diabetes, prospective longitudinal studies are still needed to demonstrate a causal link between exposure to bisphenols and the onset of diabetes or prediabetes.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponse to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283444.r002
19 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Iman Al-Saleh, Editor PONE-D-22-22640R1Relation of urinary bisphenol concentration and diabetes or prediabetes in French adults: a cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Piffaretti, Thank you for submitting a revised copy of the above referenced manuscript to PLOS ONE. As shown at the end of this email, Reviewer # 1 still has some minor concerns/comments that need to be addressed by the authors before a final decision is made. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Iman Al-Saleh Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for your responses to my comments. The paper is easy to read, well documented. I still have some comments on the revised manuscript. 1. Line 16 – it should be `prevalence` not `risk` 2. Line 20 and elsewhere in the manuscript, you should write `multivariable models` not `multivariate models`. 3. Line 22 you quote a `percentage` not a `proportion` 4. line 24 and elsewhere in the text line 211, Table 2 legend) – this should be?: OR for an increase of 0.1 units in log transformed concentration of BPA (�g/L) 5. `prevalence` not `risk` 6. Line 79 add `BPS, and BPF and the prevalence of diabetes or prediabetes…` 7. Line 147 – you correctly use the `standard deviation` not the `standard error`. Change this. 8. Table 1 the footnote should read `standard deviation` not `standard error` 9. Line 266 - `a French population` - it is not the entire French population Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Priscilla Perez da Silva Pereira ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283444.r003
Revision 2
7 Mar 2023 Author Response Journal requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: It has been done. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Thank you for your responses to my comments. The paper is easy to read, well documented. I still have some comments on the revised manuscript. 1. Line 16 – it should be `prevalence` not `risk` Thank you for the comment. We replaced ‘risk’ by ‘prevalence’. 2. Line 20 and elsewhere in the manuscript, you should write `multivariable models` not `multivariate models`. Response: Thank you for this point. We changed ‘multivariate models’ to ‘multivariable models’ in lines 20, 160, 261 and 266. 3. Line 22 you quote a `percentage` not a `proportion` Response: We replaced the term ‘proportion’ with ‘percentage’. 4. line 24 and elsewhere in the text line 211, Table 2 legend) – this should be?: OR for an increase of 0.1 units in log transformed concentration of BPA (µg/L) Response: Thank you for this precision, the wording has been changed. 5. `prevalence` not `risk` Response: On line 28, we changed ‘risk’ to ‘prevalence’. 6. Line 79 add `BPS, and BPF and the prevalence of diabetes or prediabetes…` Response: Thank you, we added ‘the prevalence of’ in the text. 7. Line 147 – you correctly use the `standard deviation` not the `standard error`. Change this. 8. Table 1 the footnote should read `standard deviation` not `standard error` Response: Sorry for this mistake, we replaced ‘standard error’ by ‘standard deviation’ in the text and in the footnote of Table 1. 9. Line 266 - `a French population` - it is not the entire French population Response: On line 227, we changed ‘of the French general population’ to ‘conducted on a sample of the French general population’. On line 288, we replaced ‘In our sample of the French adult population’ by ‘In our sample of the metropolitan French adult population’, the overseas territories not being included. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283444.r004
8 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Iman Al-Saleh, Editor Relation of urinary bisphenol concentration and diabetes or prediabetes in French adults: a cross-sectional study PONE-D-22-22640R2 Dear Dr. Piffaretti, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Iman Al-Saleh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283444.r005
Formally Accepted
22 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Iman Al-Saleh, Editor PONE-D-22-22640R2 Relation of urinary bisphenol concentration and diabetes or prediabetes in French adults: a cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Piffaretti: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Iman Al-Saleh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283444.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .